Have you been "Shocked and Awed"?

[Az]

Not exactly, I think. You can't use them as shields, yes, but it works both ways, ie. the US can't expect the Iraqi troops to commit suicide by going into open, merely because there are civilians in the area.

Actually, AFAIK, the Geneva convention prohibits both firing at civilian locations, and defending from them. This is obviously pure bull****, since there is no chance that such a thing would ever happen in modern ( or otherwise ) warfare. I've yet to see a conflict where this clause, and many others weren't broken multiple times.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by nato


Then at "only" 2000 civilians killed, the WTC shouldn't have been a problem at all...

don't even go there. there is a difference between collateral damage and attacking a civilian building outright.

[axi]

You must have a different US Constitution than I do.

Is that a constitutional law?

Constitutions change from time to time as well. I find Americans really pathologically attached to their constitution, as if it were some divine law. I guess that what your country needs most of all is a radical reshaping of the political system, just to break this superstition. It will benefit you enormously as a nation if you dare to do that, even if the actual reforms may not be really radical.

[VetLegion]

US constitution is pretty solid, even if it was meant for white protestant landowners when it was written i dont think they should change it, it may be for the worst.

[Az]

erm, axi, let us not forget that this "undivine law" is what kept them from plunging into dictatorship.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How ironic it is that we are using weapons of mass destruction (did you see the TV last night) to liberate a country which allegedly posses them?

When did we drop a nuke?

There is no other way how Iraq can defend vs USA agression. So they don't have any choices.

So, wait. Since they don't have any choice, it is alright for them to let civilians die to accomplish their goals?

[Inverse Icarus]

i think he's (incorrectly) referring to MOABs.

those arent nukes, albiet fairly powerful.

[Lonestar]

I thought we were using 2,000 lb JDAMs....

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

There is no other way how Iraq can defend vs USA agression. So they don't have any choices.

So, wait. Since they don't have any choice, it is alright for them to let civilians die to accomplish their goals?

war is horrible. ideally, there would be war and cilivian life, but all too often the two become intertwined in a horrific swirl of blood.

in all honesty, what saddam does (station troops in schools etc) seems extremely rational when facing an army you cannot beat, as sick as it may be.

[faded glory]

lol

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Jaakko


This outburst displays some amazing naivete. Yes, the RG sure has cheek to defend Baghdad in the most effective way (ie. to hunker down within the city), and not come out in the open so the US can kill them all from the air.

It's a perfectly acceptable military solution, and any civilian casualties resulting from defending the city are collateral damage in the purest definition of the word.

Any country in the world would do the same, given the circumstances.

duh

Can I not still insult them for this dishonorable tactic without being accused of naivete?

[nato]

Originally posted by UberKruX


don't even go there. there is a difference between collateral damage and attacking a civilian building outright.

Yeah, it is true there is a big difference in intentions. Of course that doesn't help the dead much, but yeah.

But what I was responding to just seemed really hypocritical. 2000 dead Americans requires a completely changed world, but 3000 dead Iraqis is quite acceptable.

Theres never any good answers with things like this.

[Thud]

Here's another one from the Ag-style of war commentary:

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads - they are not there accidentally"
-30s Soviet infantry manual

Don't believe what officials tell you

So now we shouldn't beleive them when they say that the war may drag out and become dangerous closer to Baghdad

Don't believe what the news tells you - the fog of war is just that. And the embedded newspeople are effectively controlled by the military.

Agathon, I disagree here. Perhaps Cuba is Commie, but the USA is not. Besides, the media is as wimpy as you get. CNN has a fit every time an American soldier is injured or we don't break a new speed record to Baghdad.

Asher, I myself was mildly amused by your post, but yours was uncannily accurate.

[Zero]

Uber, you got your location wrong, every bomb we drop blows a reminder that calc's huge chunk of his paycheck is blown away.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Thud
Here's another one from the Ag-style of war commentary:

So now we shouldn't beleive them when they say that the war may drag out and become dangerous closer to Baghdad?

Of course we shouldn't believe what officials say when we know that they have good reason to lie and have actually lied in war situations. If we had other evidence to believe what they said is true then that's fine - but that other evidence is doing all the work.

Perhaps not everyone sees that this is obvious.